Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hebrews 10:26 challenge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:
    Hebrews 10:26 The stern warning begins sonorously with a marked assonance. The adverb "willingly" (ἑκουσίως) appears emphatically as the opening word. The language derives from the Pentateuchal distinction between willful or high-handed and inadvertent sins that was widely recognized in post-biblical Judaism. As the sequel indicates, our author has in mind a specific willful sin, that of apostasy. The present tense of the participle (ἁμαρτανόντων) suggests that the sin involved is not a single act, but a continuing rejection of Christ. The pronoun ἡμῶν, "we," moderates the severity of the warning by including the author himself under its provisions.

    Such willful sin occurs after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" (μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας), terminology that closely resembles a fixed expression used in the pastoral epistles for conversion. As in the previous warning passage (6:4-8) traditional language used of conversion and baptism is prominent. The noun ἐπίγνωσις is more solemn than simply γνῶσις, but there is no substantive difference between the two. The phrase as a whole suggests that there is an intellectual element to faith, although the content of that "truth" is not specified.

    The affirmation that there does not "remain any sacrifice" (ἀπολείπεται θυσία) for such willful sins simply reaffirms the results of the reflection on Christ's unique sacrifice. That act was seen to have abrogated the old cult and thus displaced any other means of reconciliation with God.

    27 What does remain for sinners is a "fearful expectation" (φοβερὰ δέ ἐκδοχή), an ominous note enhanced by the indefinite adjective τις. The expected judgment on sin can have only one outcome, condemnation to a "fiery zeal" (πυρὸς ζῆλος). Like the "day" of the previous pericope, the punishing fire is another motif of biblical prophecy that became a common feature of eschatological tableaux. Those whom this divine wrath consumes, those who "stand in opposition" (τοὺς ὑπεναντίους), are those who reject Christ's sacrifice, the primary enemies who are to be set under his feet.

    The threat of judgment that this evocative eschatological imagery introduces will soon be balanced by a more hopeful recollection of the addressees' conduct. Yet the vision of impending judgment and the serious responsibilities it entails will continue throughout the subsequent exhortations. The warning passage in the final paraenetic section will close on a similar note, that God is a consuming fire (12:29).
    Last edited by John Reece; 10-07-2016, 08:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by John Reece View Post
      From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:
      Hebrews 10:26 The stern warning begins sonorously with a marked assonance. The adverb "willingly" (ἑκουσίως) appears emphatically as the opening word. The language derives from the Pentateuchal distinction between willful or high-handed and inadvertent sins that was widely recognized in post-biblical Judaism. As the sequel indicates, our author has in mind a specific willful sin, that of apostasy. The present tense of the participle (ἁμαρτανόντων) suggests that the sin involved is not a single act, but a continuing rejection of Christ. The pronoun ἡμῶν, "we," moderates the severity of the warning by including the author himself under its provisions.

      Such willful sin occurs after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" (μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας), terminology that closely resembles a fixed expression used in the pastoral epistles for conversion. As in the previous warning passage (6:4-8) traditional language used of conversion and baptism is prominent. The noun ἐπίγνωσις is more solemn than simply γνῶσις, but there is no substantive difference between the two. The phrase as a whole suggests that there is an intellectual element to faith, although the content of that "truth" is not specified.

      The affirmation that there does not "remain any sacrifice" (ἀπολείπεται θυσία) for such willful sins simply reaffirms the results of the reflection on Christ's unique sacrifice. That act was seen to have abrogated the old cult and thus displaced any other means of reconciliation with God.

      27 What does remain for sinners is a "fearful expectation" (φοβερὰ δέ ἐκδοχή), an ominous note enhanced by the indefinite adjective τις. The expected judgment on sin can have only one outcome, condemnation to a "fiery zeal" (πυρὸς ζῆλος). Like the "day" of the previous pericope, the punishing fire is another motif of biblical prophecy that became a common feature of eschatological tableaux. Those whom this divine wrath consumes, those who "stand in opposition" (τοὺς ὑπεναντίους), are those who reject Christ's sacrifice, the primary enemies who are to be set under his feet.

      The threat of judgment that this evocative eschatological imagery introduces will soon be balanced by a more hopeful recollection of the addressees' conduct. Yet the vision of impending judgment and the serious responsibilities it entails will continue throughout the subsequent exhortations. The warning passage in the final paraenetic section will close on a similar note, that God is a consuming fire (12:29).
      The Comment above was introduced in the commentary (op. cit.) by the following Translation and Analysis:
      A Warning Renewed ― Hebrews 10:26-27

      26 For, if we sin willingly after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27/ but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fiery zeal which is to consume those who stand in opposition.

      Analysis

      The second section of the paraenetic translation, which is best understood as a hortatory prelude to the next major section of the text, develops the allusion to divine judgment implicit in the reference to the "day" and repeats the dire warning that had preceded the central expository section (6:4-8). The warning here is initially issued in more general terms than were used earlier. For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).

      Comment


      • #63
        . . . For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).
        That interpreation is false.

        Why?
        First off, Chirst's sacrifice is the only one there is for sins.

        . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. . . . -- Hebrews 10:10.

        . . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. . . ." -- Hebrews 10:14.

        . . . And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin. . . . -- hebrews 10:17-18.

        And secondly, the Christian is the one who is saved - never lost.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by John Reece View Post
          From The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), by Harold W. Attridge; 1989, Fortress Press, Philadelphia:
          ......For a Christian's sins there is no possibility of renewed sacrifice (verse 26), but only judgment and punishment (verse 27).

          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          That interpreation is false.

          Why?
          First off, Christ's sacrifice is the only one there is for sins.

          . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. . . . -- Hebrews 10:10.

          . . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. . . ." -- Hebrews 10:14.

          . . . And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, [there is] no more offering for sin. . . . -- hebrews 10:17-18.

          And secondly, the Christian is the one who is saved - never lost.
          In context, Attridge's term "a Christian's sins" is a reference to apostasy.

          Is it your view that it is not possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

          If so, what would be the point of the author of the Epistle so urgently admonishing his readers not to do so???
          Last edited by John Reece; 10-10-2016, 02:33 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Looking at the grammar for ημων it might be better translated . . . of us . . . . It is less inclusive than . . . we . . . . So adding "if" to . . . if of us . . . need not change the meaning of . . . of us. John what do you think?
            FYI, here's what the NIGTC (New International Greek Testament Commentary) says about the last two words of the clause, Ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν
            Source: NIGTC


            Ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν: the present participle suggests continuous sin; more specifically, a continuation of the state existing before the readers came to “the knowledge of the truth”; certainly more than the permanent possibility or risk of falling back into sin. Michel aptly quotes Theophylact: ὅρα δὲ πῶς οὐκ εἶπεν ἁμαρτόντων, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτανόντων, τουτέστιν ἐμμενόντων τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀμετανοήτως. The genitive absolute (correctly used; cf. BD §423; MHT 3.322f.) has the force of an open condition; cf. “if” in 2:2. The author associates himself with his readers, but does not, of course, thereby imply that he has committed the sins to be specified in v. 29. The tactful “we”-form broadens, without losing sight of, the reference to the τινός of v. 25.

            © Copyright Original Source

            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X